Kristian Andrew Jaworski · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Apr 2016•North London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to rebut a cost-based presumption in favour of vaginal delivery
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide individualised pregnancy and birth risk assessment and planningPart of recurring concern: Unreliable mode-of-delivery decision-making

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Department of Health and Social Care

    The hospital trust must consider why caesarean delivery was not attempted earlier and whether cost influenced that decision.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Department of Health and Social Care

    The Department cannot comment on why caesarean delivery was not attempted earlier or whether cost influenced that decision.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to rebut a cost-based presumption in favour of vaginal delivery

Wider context from the report

“That there was a presumption in favour of vaginal delivery based partly of cost that needed to be rebutted. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide individualised pregnancy and birth risk assessment and planning; Unreliable mode-of-delivery decision-making.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The hospital trust must consider why caesarean delivery was not attempted earlier and whether cost influenced that decision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am unable to comment on why a caesarean delivery was not attempted at an earlier opportunity in this case or whether that decision was based in any way on cost – this is clearly something that the North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust needs to consider. I will ensure that a copy of your letter and this reply are sent to the Trust to give them the opportunity to respond to your concern.”

Source location

2016-0125-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2016

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Department cannot comment on why caesarean delivery was not attempted earlier or whether cost influenced that decision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am unable to comment on why a caesarean delivery was not attempted at an earlier opportunity in this case or whether that decision was based in any way on cost – this is clearly something that the North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust needs to consider. I will ensure that a copy of your letter and this reply are sent to the Trust to give them the opportunity to respond to your concern.”

Source location

2016-0125-Response-by-Department-of-Health
Page 2 · response
Published 4 April 2016

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026